Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Josh]

Here's somewhere where the U.S. has fallen behind:

- Hypersonic missiles

And here's another:

- Ballistic missile defence

We should be glad Russia has decided to go to war with America, because those two weaknesses are rather big, gaping weaknesses.

Err. Has NOT decided to.

[temporal1]

Temporal,
Have you considered why Russia might have unveiled a new missile at this time?

i try not to speculate, i prefer to pray for resolution. i’m sad that there seems so little interest in resolution.
The interest seems to be in escalation, esp feeling justified and self-righteous in escalation. really sad.

Based on your quote, AND the little i’ve read about the post-USSR Russian Federation, it’s probably wise to consider this is a show of strength, or at least a display of willingness to extreme self-sacrifice in hope of gain. “not going down without a fight.”

Truth is, no matter how things “look” to outsiders, no matter how clear the picture, from David+Goliath to contemporary times, outcomes are not always as expected. Many enjoy indulging in calling the shots, it’s a form of propaganda, really, attempts to build up/break down morale (all sides do this). God knows in full. The rest are playing.

There is also the matter of “flexing muscles,” and saber rattling.

What is on your mind?

[Josh]

Hypersonic missiles mean really fast, Ken - like Mach 10.
And no, the U.S. doesn’t have these. Defence contractors have been paid $$$ to develop them but they have so far all failed in tests.

Regarding ballistic missile defence, Reagan wanted this but the left and liberals fought tooth and nail against it. That was back when they all thought Russia were the “good guys”. Perhaps you can remember those times?

[Soloist]

Temporal,
Have you considered why Russia might have unveiled a new missile at this time?

i try not to speculate, i prefer to pray for resolution. i’m sad that there seems so little interest in resolution.
The interest seems to be in escalation, esp feeling justified and self-righteous in escalation. really sad.

Based on your quote, AND the little i’ve read about the post-USSR Russian Federation, it’s probably wise to consider this is a show of strength, or at least a display of willingness to extreme self-sacrifice in hope of gain. “not going down without a fight.”

Truth is, no matter how things “look” to outsiders, no matter how clear the picture, from David+Goliath to contemporary times, outcomes are not always as expected. Many enjoy indulging in calling the shots, it’s a form of propaganda, really, attempts to break down morale (all sides do this). God knows in full. The rest are playing.

There is also the matter of “flexing muscles,” and saber rattling.

What is on your mind?

Recently we named our new upcoming updated ICBM's which until the initial insurgency in Ukraine was going on was considered relatively unneeded... now it seems like the cold war is getting a little hotter lately and we now need the latest and greatest missiles too. We can downplay the success rate of missiles in Russia but in historical practice the Soviets would have bigger and more missiles where as the US made more strategic missiles with multiple warheads. Russia's development of cluster warheads with their nukes suggests a tactical shift for one reason or another but I would say that Russia is trying to correct an impression that they are weak as a stand off tactic to keep their enemy from moving in on their city states around the world.

[Ernie]

Recently we named our new upcoming updated ICBM's which until the initial insurgency in Ukraine was going on was considered relatively unneeded...

Who is the we?

[temporal1]

Temporal,
Have you considered why Russia might have unveiled a new missile at this time?

i try not to speculate, i prefer to pray for resolution. i’m sad that there seems so little interest in resolution.
The interest seems to be in escalation, esp feeling justified and self-righteous in escalation. really sad.

Based on your quote, AND the little i’ve read about the post-USSR Russian Federation, it’s probably wise to consider this is a show of strength, or at least a display of willingness to extreme self-sacrifice in hope of gain. “not going down without a fight.”

Truth is, no matter how things “look” to outsiders, no matter how clear the picture, from David+Goliath to contemporary times, outcomes are not always as expected. Many enjoy indulging in calling the shots, it’s a form of propaganda, really, attempts to break down morale (all sides do this). God knows in full. The rest are playing.

There is also the matter of “flexing muscles,” and saber rattling.

What is on your mind?

Recently we named our new upcoming updated ICBM's which until the initial insurgency in Ukraine was going on was considered relatively unneeded... now it seems like the cold war is getting a little hotter lately and we now need the latest and greatest missiles too. We can downplay the success rate of missiles in Russia but in historical practice the Soviets would have bigger and more missiles where as the US made more strategic missiles with multiple warheads. Russia's development of cluster warheads with their nukes suggests a tactical shift for one reason or another

but I would say that Russia is trying to correct an impression that they are weak as a stand off tactic to keep their enemy from moving in on their city states around the world.

my sense is the U.S. made (rookie) diplomatic blunders over years that resulted in this, i see no willingness to admit it. which has contributed to escalation, both wanted and unwanted.

i’m afraid actual diplomats have been replaced with activists, ideologues, the important work is not getting done.
i’m not even sure there are people capable of diplomacy anymore. it’s all about division, sides, egos, winning. prevailing.

[Ken]

Hypersonic missiles mean really fast, Ken - like Mach 10.
And no, the U.S. doesn’t have these. Defence contractors have been paid $$$ to develop them but they have so far all failed in tests.

Regarding ballistic missile defence, Reagan wanted this but the left and liberals fought tooth and nail against it. That was back when they all thought Russia were the “good guys”. Perhaps you can remember those times?

Like I said, all ballistic missiles in the US inventory are hypersonic. Most of them exceed Mach 20.

What you are talking about are hypersonic cruise missiles not hypersonic ballistic missiles. In other words, missiles that hug the ground and fly really fast rather than take a ballistic (parabolic) trajectory. And those are of questionable tactical value depending on who you read. Countries like Russia and China are developing them mostly as an attempt to counteract US and western anti-ballistic missile systems. Which are considered superior to anything they have. Probably a consequence of the US abandoning the ABM treaty during the Bush Administration in 2002. So we are mostly talking about nuclear missile platforms not conventional battlefield weapons.

For what purpose short of total nuclear war do you think the US needs hypersonic missile technology?

[Soloist]

Recently we named our new upcoming updated ICBM's which until the initial insurgency in Ukraine was going on was considered relatively unneeded...

Who is the we?

the Central Mennonite Committee for world warfare of course.

Generally I try to say US rather then we but I missed one. My take is that our loyalty doesn't belong to an earthly empire but I still live in the US and occasionally I refer to it as my nation despite belonging to another.

[Josh]

Recently we named our new upcoming updated ICBM's which until the initial insurgency in Ukraine was going on was considered relatively unneeded...

Who is the we?

Presumably, both of you are U.S. citizens, and "we" is commonly used to refer to collectively the nation-state in which you live.

[Josh]

Like I said, all ballistic missiles in the US inventory are hypersonic. Most of them exceed Mach 20.

What you are talking about are hypersonic cruise missiles not hypersonic ballistic missiles. In other words, missiles that hug the ground and fly really fast rather than take a ballistic (parabolic) trajectory. And those are of questionable tactical value depending on who you read. Countries like Russia and China are developing them mostly as an attempt to counteract US and western anti-ballistic missile systems. Which are considered superior to anything they have. Probably a consequence of the US abandoning the ABM treaty during the Bush Administration in 2002. So we are mostly talking about nuclear missile platforms not conventional battlefield weapons.

The U.S. has no hypersonic missiles short of ICBMs, whereas Russia has demonstrated that they do. That means they can use hypersonic missiles for tactical purposes (with non-nuclear warheads). The U.S. can't.

For what purpose short of total nuclear war do you think the US needs hypersonic missile technology?

It's very hard to take up a defensive posture against an enemy with cruise missiles better than your own defences; some examples would be the U.S. operations in the Middle East or Afghanistan that relied heavily on cruise missiles. Another example is the Falkland Islands conflict with Argentina. Armed with 5 anti-ship missiles they didn't really know how to use that well, they inflicted major damages on the U.K. with a much more powerful navy and air force. If Argentina had had more of them, they probably could have repelled any U.K. naval landing and eventually taken out the U.K. carriers.

Ken, your complete confidence in U.S. military superiority is telling. This is the way many conventional, mainstream people in empires in a state of decline think. They can't imagine ever losing a military conflict. At the same time, they point to the weaknesses in everyone else's, military, as if those places have just been standing still. This leads to nonsensical conclusions like actually thinking Ukraine can win over Russia in a hot war, which is like arguing Mexico would beat the U.S. if the U.S. invaded Mexico.